Koty

Actually, cobras saw only little service as fighterbombers, more focused on combat air patrols, both defensive and offensive - and being very successful. (Especially over Kuban.) Not to mention the USAAF's disappointment came from the inability of using the plane to its strengths rather than the plane being meh. But fair enough, that is hard to judge - as different campaigns in the war were fought differently, especially when it comes to USSR/USA comparison. But hey, I am biassed, P-63 is love. Love with capital Vodka. )) And as for domestic fighters... Rather than Yak-3, I'd preffer Yak-9U and it's more modern, lighter, all-metal little brother Yak-9P - for both WW2 and Korea (at least in 9U's case, P is for Korea only...). You have to think outside the box, young padawan... )))

Now, since DCS is going WW2... What about this sweet thing?

The one used in Nam should still be identical, bar the production quality, which had effect basically just in maintenance.

Those were the instant fuses, delays between 0 and 1 second. Then there were fuses for low level bombing with roughly 4 to 20 seconds. Roughly. You could also have long delay fuses, bombs would explode like a minute after impact. No idea as to why that was a thing, but it was. And yes, low level bombing was a thing - done especially for improved accuracy or avoiding flak. Skip bombing was a thing as well - and does not equal to dam-busting. It's used against shipping.

That Not to mention that again - you want a specific historical map - without a specific historical plane... If you can make a do with different version of plane, why not over Kuban and Caucassus...

<<Going to be very fun to try out the Me 262 and be shot down when landing, it had little thrust at low air speeds and throttle response was very slow at the time.>> Actually - the thrust only gets lower with higher speed ;) Thrust of jet engines (in general) rises only when reaching higher mach numbers (0.7 and up, roughly). So - the acceleration was bad no matter how fast you flew. Throttle response was not slow, quite vice versa, as there was little to no automation - which meant flameouts when you retarded throttle too fast - and engines setting on fire when you accelerated the throttle too fast. Flameouts would also occur at low throttle, iirc because the turbine would not provide enough air.

There are two variants of the Chinese J-6. The early one, being direct copy of MiG-19S (and that one saw combat in Vietnam) and modernized one with the distinctive "sting" - an upgraded drag-chute bay that was now on the vertical stab. instead of under the fuselage. As for MiG-15, I have never ever heard of MiG-15/15bis even serving with VPAF - only a few 15UTI's. As for someone mentioning lack of RWR on early 21's, that is of course false, as even F-13 had at least SPO-2 (antene on the top of tail).

Let me ask you this - why would anyone go into the lengths of producing a period/conflict specific map, when there is no conflict specific plane? Let's say Razbam actually makes the 19S (They did say they might do it, if they get enough time/sources/resources), then we would have F-5E (would need ornance extension iirc) and MiG-19S. There is A-4 in works. And that's it. And MiG-19S was kind of niche in Nam. While a good starting point, for Vietnam, we would need LN to expand their 21bis into at least MF (similar fuel system and cockpit - that would simulate 1975 version, early version would be a tad bit different) - the biggest difference being the radar equipment (and things connected to that), being modernized RP-21 radar, not RP-22 (thus no need for cooling, similar range, different power output). Which makes one wonder - is it really worth it? Because you would either be selling two similar planes for some $40 each - or sell both under one item, but a bit more expensive. I am not saying DCS:VietNam is impossible, just highly unlikely at the moment. Much more likely would be Iran-Iraq war ;) You see - we got MiG-21bis, F-14 in production, F-5E, FC3:Su-25... that has more potential. And F-4E would fit right in.

you have CBU bombs. Frag rounds with airburst are basically exactly just that.

OH LOOK The spitfire on this 1944 photo has wrong roundels... oh wait a sec )))

Yeah. Exactly. We do that when modding IL-2... ...though, we are not competitors, colleagues rather. No idea how about the DCS devs... Then again, up until recently we used to have quite a lot of variants of certain munitions, there was a mess in pivot points and hook positions so... we had a "fun" time unifying that part too... naming conventions, coding of ordnance that actually needed anything further beyond standard parameters... So, to say it in common-folk speech, standards matter as well and unless you are using one standard for all munitions, there is no chance for sharing them among devs.

Well, since MiG-19S is marked as "possible"... MiG-19PM? Just to bring the whole family. And well... just to bring into discussion more Iran-Iraq war tech... Su-7 family? Lots of variants that did not differ all that much and would be simple to convert, ranging from the initial high altitude interceptor to low-level strikefighters with insane ammounts of rockets...

Well... is the base input really important? From what I know, it was only used for manual rangefinding ála MiG-15/P-51 when the rangefinder was unserviceable, for this or that reason.

The 21MF had radar with similar range, but lower power - could not use R-3R's - but it could run continously, without worries about overheating it. The cockpit was a bit different from bis, but similar in concept. Past 1975, the Gorkiy plant was basically copying the 21bis cockpit, just few lights and switches were dummies (emergency reheat, mainly). The fuel system was different. Past 1975, it was basically a copy, just with different tank sizes (less fuel, but also less thirsty engine than bis.), prior to 1975, you'd find differences in tank layout, fuel-pumps etc. Other than that, the capabilities of MF were similar to bis. Even to the extent of "75" variant having the radio equipment of bis. MF could carry the same bombs as bis, the same IR missiles as bis (except for R-55) - even the R-60 could be carried after some simple field modifications. It could even carry the jamming pod. It could also carry both RS-2us and Kh-66 and all kinds of unguided rockets. It would be fairly easy to convert current bis to the late MF as a user mod. The late variant did not however see combat in Vietnam, but would be functionaly and performance-wise identical to the old MF. As for MiG-21PF and PFM, PF could not carry the centerline gunpod. This confusion might come from two variants of PFM being fielded, one with forward opening canopy (same as PF) and one with sideways opening canopy. Simple way to recognize them is the tail ;) (However, the forward-opening PF looks identical to Indian 21FL, that one had poor-man's radar incapable of using beam-riders.) Also, it could not use "radar homing missiles" - just beamriders. Actual radar homing came with MiG-21S and RP-22 radar (MiG-21M, MA and MF had RP-21 variant).

MiG-19P was not used in Vietnam. MiG-21bis was not used in Vietnam. They are completely different from variants used there.

Well, depends if it was P/PD/PDS, or R/RB/RBS... ;) I'd even enjoy the recon variant, just for the heck of it. Though, in terms of economics and overall place in the DCS, I'd say fighter over bomber. Then again, iirc, there were speculations that Razbam was denied the MiG-23 because someone else had it in plans... but man ... I'd love the 23MLA (another plane that our airforce used... MiG-15bis, MiG-19P, MiG-23MLA - would be third full-fidelity module - if we do not count MiG-21bis - because of wrong variant ^^; - oh wait, Razbam, guys, please - make the MF/MFN :megalol: )

Actually, you have to conscider two things: 1) F-15's are not going to fly supersonic, transsonic at most, at mil.power, it will take some time to accelerate. 2) Most fights I have seen (yt - cannot really go into multiplayer atm, need to upgrade RAM) have taken place below 5 km, where the top speeds are much closer, with MiG-19 being transsonic and F-15 only slightly supersonic (iirc, it's actually slower than F-4E...).

Remember, in theory you can kill an F-15 by throwing a rock in the air - if either your aim is good or you're extremely lucky, that is...

_uses necromancy_ In case anyone was still wondering: RS-2us was not only able of doing ground attack stuff, IRL it was actually trained thing - to attack ground targets with the said missile. This is comming from experience of actual (Czechoslovak) air-force personel - a book, and posts on a mil-history page. Funnily enough, the same has been done with MiG-19PM! Pilots would train A-A use over Astrakhan desert (RSSFR), north of Caspian sea - and then train at home, firing at ground targets... From what I remember, it was this possibility of using the RS-2us against ground targets that led to using the guidance system for Kh-66. Which meant that you could train the use of Kh-66 using the RS-2us - and in turn use Kh-66 against aerial targets (which is possible in DCS, as I have seen - someone even took out an F-15 with the grom!), well - except for its lack of proximity fuse, which meant either direct hit or miss...

That is one sexy aircraft... ...also, easier than the 19S, the 19PM could be an option ;) 3D wise, you would basically just remove guns and add four forward facing pylons. Also, could there be an option to switch the armament/avionics to the early variant with RP-1 and NR-23's?

Well, since we got a nice array of Iran-Iraq war planes, F-4E could be fun. Or MiG-25 to take on the F-14's...

G-2 should carry 151/20's In certain settups also 4xMG151/20 + 2xMK108

Well, there already are gun rounds riccochets (not sure about spelling, but w/e, you know what I mean), using those physics for bombs for starters would work. As for bomb delay, the delay itself wouldn't be a problem I guess. But rather making GUI for it and then altering the effectivness of the explosion. US, British and Soviets used mechanical fuses, they had to be set on ground - so maybe right-clicking a selected bomb in the loadout selection menu and going from there? Not to mention there were different kinds of fuses with different delay spans etc. And yes, even the modern jets we got should use those. Su-27 and A-10 included.

Oh, never conscidered that... but it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining.

The question to ask is - was the 220 limit because the cowl flaps would get damaged or because you would overcool the engine?